4 ms·

While we can praise Churchill for many things, we should never gloss over the fact that he favored eugenics and was deeply racist [1]. For instance, he's quoted

While we can praise Churchill for many things, we should never gloss over the fact that he favored eugenics and was deeply racist [1]. For instance, he's quoted as saying "I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race... has come in and taken their place." [1]: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ae55v8/winston-churchill-racist-warmonger-sterilize-mentally-ill https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ae55v8/winston-church...

C1sc0cat 8y ago
A lot of the "liberal progressives" pre ww2 where in favour of sterilising certain elements of the population until that whole "hitler thing" happened. In the USA it was the conservative republicans that opposed it.
- nickik 8y ago
  Yes. I recommend "Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era". An eye opening view about the "Progressives" who are so loved and idolized by the modern left or modern progressives.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I'm not sure I'd describe the Carnegie Institution, or Rockefeller Foundation, who funded a lot of the eugenics research with the end in mind as notably liberal progressive. Nor could the Republicans Coolidge ("Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races") and Hoover, who were both heavily in favour, be described as progressive liberals. Roosevelt was in favour too, of course. It was a movement independent of politics, and especially popular in pre-war USA on both sides of the political divide.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    HG Wells and a lot of the left leaning British intellectuals did and Sweden only stopped sterilising in the 1970's
- RickJWagner 8y ago
  Eugenics was a strongly held belief of Margaret Sanger, founder of today's Planned Parenthood. Sanger had other strong negatives in her past, including speaking before KKK affiliated groups. Real history is sometimes inconvenient, depending on your political point of view.
trukterious 8y ago
The difference is that the things that we praise Churchill for, e.g. leading the unpopular fight against the Nazis, were almost unique to him. Yet the charge that 'he favored eugenics and was deeply racist' could be levelled at many or most of his peers.
sfcguyus 8y ago
It's quite odd to pick this angle, Gandhi despite being on the fighting end of the Churchill had his own racial slurs against Africans.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
newppc 8y ago
Churchill was pretty brutal. "In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winst... "Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”." https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-churchill/ https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-...
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when the Indian states set trade restrictions with Bengal. That was one of the policies that was outside the Raj, as was the resulting profiteering. They did so after the fall of Burma at a time when Bengal was suffering an unprecedented series of natural disasters. Facts can be inconvenient sometimes.
  - unmole 8y ago
    > Indian states set trade restrictions with Bengal. That was one of the policies that was outside the Raj You mean the British administration resorted to scorched earth denial policies fearing the Japanese advance. It was literally Raj policy. > Bengal was suffering an unprecedented series of natural disasters. And the British response to the natural disasters was continuing to redirect supplies to military and refusing to allow shipping of humanitarian aid. Churchill's response to news of the famine was ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet. > Facts can be inconvenient sometimes. Like the fact that India repeatedly suffered famines under British rule but there hasn't been a famine since Independence?
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      India of British rule is now three countries, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Combine the three and there have been numerous famines since independence. Course that doesn't fit your agenda.
qubax 8y ago
Fundamentally, churchill and hitler were the same ideologically. The only difference is that one was on our side and won and the other was on the german side and lost. Churchill was a fan of gassing people long before hitler. He was a fan of death camps long before hitler. It just goes to show you that winners get to write the histories. "I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Swap Indians for Jews and you have hitler. "In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal." Churchill intentionally starved millions of indians to death. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winst... If you look at the photos of what churchill and the british did to indians during ww2, they look exactly like holocaust photos. And you'll notice one thing churchill genocide apologists and holocaust deniers have in common. They both put the blame on the genocide of indians and jews on the axis. Holocaust deniers claim that jews died because the soviets and americans bombed railroad supply lines to the death camps. Churchill apologists blame the japanese for beating britain in burma. They conveniently ignore the fact that neither churchill or hitler cared about the well being of the jews or indians and even celebrated the mass starvation. The sad truth of history is that had the nazis won ww2, Hitler would be praised as the "Great Lion" by historians. Go look at the horrific bengali holocaust photos to see if you think churchill deserves any praise.
genicsgenics 8y ago
you’re either into eugenics or dysgenics. i await your reasoning on why improving the human race is a knock.
jeffwass 8y ago
FYI Nikola Tesla had similar views on eugenics as well.

C1sc0cat 8y ago

A lot of the "liberal progressives" pre ww2 where in favour of sterilising certain elements of the population until that whole "hitler thing" happened. In the USA it was the conservative republicans that opposed it.

nickik 8y ago
Yes. I recommend "Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era". An eye opening view about the "Progressives" who are so loved and idolized by the modern left or modern progressives.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I'm not sure I'd describe the Carnegie Institution, or Rockefeller Foundation, who funded a lot of the eugenics research with the end in mind as notably liberal progressive. Nor could the Republicans Coolidge ("Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races") and Hoover, who were both heavily in favour, be described as progressive liberals. Roosevelt was in favour too, of course. It was a movement independent of politics, and especially popular in pre-war USA on both sides of the political divide.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  HG Wells and a lot of the left leaning British intellectuals did and Sweden only stopped sterilising in the 1970's
RickJWagner 8y ago
Eugenics was a strongly held belief of Margaret Sanger, founder of today's Planned Parenthood. Sanger had other strong negatives in her past, including speaking before KKK affiliated groups. Real history is sometimes inconvenient, depending on your political point of view.

trukterious 8y ago

The difference is that the things that we praise Churchill for, e.g. leading the unpopular fight against the Nazis, were almost unique to him. Yet the charge that 'he favored eugenics and was deeply racist' could be levelled at many or most of his peers.

sfcguyus 8y ago

It's quite odd to pick this angle, Gandhi despite being on the fighting end of the Churchill had his own racial slurs against Africans.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

newppc 8y ago

Churchill was pretty brutal. "In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winst... "Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”." https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-churchill/ https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-...

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when the Indian states set trade restrictions with Bengal. That was one of the policies that was outside the Raj, as was the resulting profiteering. They did so after the fall of Burma at a time when Bengal was suffering an unprecedented series of natural disasters. Facts can be inconvenient sometimes.
- unmole 8y ago
  > Indian states set trade restrictions with Bengal. That was one of the policies that was outside the Raj You mean the British administration resorted to scorched earth denial policies fearing the Japanese advance. It was literally Raj policy. > Bengal was suffering an unprecedented series of natural disasters. And the British response to the natural disasters was continuing to redirect supplies to military and refusing to allow shipping of humanitarian aid. Churchill's response to news of the famine was ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet. > Facts can be inconvenient sometimes. Like the fact that India repeatedly suffered famines under British rule but there hasn't been a famine since Independence?
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    India of British rule is now three countries, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Combine the three and there have been numerous famines since independence. Course that doesn't fit your agenda.

qubax 8y ago

Fundamentally, churchill and hitler were the same ideologically. The only difference is that one was on our side and won and the other was on the german side and lost. Churchill was a fan of gassing people long before hitler. He was a fan of death camps long before hitler. It just goes to show you that winners get to write the histories. "I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Swap Indians for Jews and you have hitler. "In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal." Churchill intentionally starved millions of indians to death. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winst... If you look at the photos of what churchill and the british did to indians during ww2, they look exactly like holocaust photos. And you'll notice one thing churchill genocide apologists and holocaust deniers have in common. They both put the blame on the genocide of indians and jews on the axis. Holocaust deniers claim that jews died because the soviets and americans bombed railroad supply lines to the death camps. Churchill apologists blame the japanese for beating britain in burma. They conveniently ignore the fact that neither churchill or hitler cared about the well being of the jews or indians and even celebrated the mass starvation. The sad truth of history is that had the nazis won ww2, Hitler would be praised as the "Great Lion" by historians. Go look at the horrific bengali holocaust photos to see if you think churchill deserves any praise.

genicsgenics 8y ago

you’re either into eugenics or dysgenics. i await your reasoning on why improving the human race is a knock.

jeffwass 8y ago

FYI Nikola Tesla had similar views on eugenics as well.